Armenian Question and The Unites States mandatory Issue over Armenia
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin Treaty, which was signed in 1878 between the Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany and Italy, revised the Treaty of San Stefano in the same year, was the turning point for Armenian Question and Eastern Question. As a result of this treaty, the situation in the Balkans was settled to a large extent by the European Powers in accordance with their interest. However, the Armenian Question was suspended for the next decades. The decision taken by European Powers as to Armenia during the Berlin Treaty was that the Sublime Port would make reforms in the places where the population mostly consist of the Armenians. Throughout the next decades, the Armenian Question became a complicated subject between Ottoman government and European Powers and it
…show more content…
He explained why the Central Powers were in need of United States mandatory that the Central Powers had already embarked many responsibilities stemmed from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (Wilson, p. 2). According to his speech, the official request for American mandatory over Armenia offered even though the Central Powers had pressured informally so far. In reply to this request, President Wilson asked the Congress decision to be authorized on this duty.
The President’s speech was well-accepted among Armenians that one of the reaction came from A. F. Hafopisan who was the Vice-President and Special Envoy of the Armenia National Delegation to the Peace Conference to the Secretary of the State, BainBridge Colby. He emphasized in his letter that the question of mandatory over Armenia has been about to be decided and the people supporting American mandate should continue to express their opinions to the President Wilson (Hafopisan, May 27,
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
The Ottoman Empire was a large empire that lasted for several hundred years. They were primarily Sunni Muslims and they were led by the Sultan. Over time, they had a long decline, mostly because they hadn’t progressed with the times. France and Britain were getting very involved with their affairs in Egypt. By the late 1800’s most of the Ottoman Empire was gone. During World War One (WWI), in 1916, the Arabs helped Great Britain to defeat the Ottoman Empire. In 1918 the Ottomans surrendered and their empire was dissolved. When mandates were established it caused nationalist ro revolt. General Mustafa
Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States and held the office from 1913-1921. He became known as “the Crusader” due to his foreign policy theory that America should be a beacon of liberty and aggressively pursue the spread of democracy throughout the world. His policy would enable America to prosper economically and develop an international security community through the promotion of democracy in other nations. While former Secretary of State Kissinger writes in his book Diplomacy that 20th century American foreign policy has been driven by Wilsonian idealism, an analysis of 21st century US foreign policy reveals that, in fact, US foreign policy has been influenced by ideals that can be characterized as Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian as well.
Link’s book was published in 1979 and was written based upon privet manuscript collections, government archives from the U.S, Brittan, France and Germany, as well as newspapers. Link also reaches from monographs, biographies, and articles from numerous colleagues. (Link.pg 129) Each of these sources are solid and reliable sources, and were well used to put together a book packed with information on Woodrow Wilson’s life. Link uses many firsthand accounts from Wilson himself, but seems almost suspicious of accounts that were not presented first hand. Though Link is extremely selective in what he chose to present, the book clearly presents these facts, but has a very bias opinion of Wilson as discussed earlier. Link’s evidence, though selective, fits nicely in the monograph and makes the aspects of Wilson that he does cover clear and easy to read
He constantly pulls on the heartstrings of the audience by persuading them to choose a truce and freedom over violence. When listeners heard the tranquil life they could live if they followed the points, many of them eagerly agreed with Wilson. When he explained why he entered the war, he said that war “touched us to the quick” (Wilson) because the United States simply could not move on without joining in and correcting the issue. This use of language appeals to the emotions by showing America’s sensitivity and passion towards righteousness. Later, he continues to establish his nation’s morals by declaring “We stand together until the end” (Wilson). Woodrow Wilson makes the unity of his country very clear, likely inspiring others who yearn for similar connections. Also, he uses the word “we” (Wilson) instead of only referring to himself to show that this was a decision made by his whole country. He ends the speech by explaining the commitment of his people, announcing that “they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess” (Wilson). American citizens are so committed to what they believe in, that they are willing to risk it all just to stand up for what they believe is right. All of these statements appeal to feelings because it is moving to hear how the citizens of the United States put their lives on the line in an attempt to achieve a state of peace for every country involved in the
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
As he sat down to compose his congressional address proposing war, the uncertainty of his decision. overwhelmed him. He confided to a member of his cabinet, Frank Cobb, that He had never been as unsure about anything in his life as the judgment he made for the nation (Baker 506). Through a rhetorical analysis of Wilson’s points of argumentation and his style in the presentation to the war. congress, we can gain a better understanding of the president’s purpose.
The speech “War Message” by former president Woodrow Wilson is one of the most memorable speeches of all time. He is able to capture the audience’s attention and really make them listen with the help of many rhetorical elements. Woodrow Wilson is by far one of the best presidents this nation has ever seen and also one of the best speakers of all time. The magnitude of this speech and what it is about gives it such an appeal without even trying. The rhetorical elements of this text such as ethos, pathos, and logos are what gives this speech its credibility, its powerfulness, and its persuasiveness.
There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia's influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria's closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia's Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist revolts.
President Woodrow Wilson had hopes for a New World. For Wilson, the war had been fought against autocracy. A peace settlement based on liberal-democratic ideals, he hoped, would get rid of the foundations of war. None of Wilson's hopes seemed better than the idea of self-determination -- the right of a people to have its own state, free of any foreign domination. In particular, this goal meant the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France which had been lost to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, the creation of an independent Poland, the changing of the frontiers of Italy to include Austrian lands where Italians lived, and an opportunity for Slavs of the Austro- Hungarian Empire to form their own states.
...and military restrictions were implemented. Armenia, and various other independent states were established as a result of the treaty. The empire lost about 80 percent of its original landmass, and eventually declined and fell entirely.
The Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire faced years of persecution and murder due to their religious beliefs and their choice of location. This genocide began, as quoted in The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation by Stephan Astourian, as beginning between the nights of April 24th and 25th, 1915. (Astourian, 1990) On these nights, hundreds of Armenian leaders, ranging from the political sphere to financial and even intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople, the capital of the
The Special Olympics date back all the way to the year 1968. Many see these Games as a time to honor someone who is able to “overcome” a task, but author William Peace sees this as an insulting portrayal of people with disabilities. Peace is a multidisciplinary school teacher and scholar that uses a wheel chair and writes about the science behind disabilities and handicaps. As a physically handicapped individual, Peace is able to observe a negative portrayal of disabled persons. In his article titled, “Slippery Slopes: Media, Disability, and Adaptive Sports,” William Peace offers his own personal insight, utilizes several statistics regarding handicaps, as well as numerous rhetorical appeals in order to communicate to the “common man”
Ethnic Armenians have resided in the Middle Eastern region of the world since approximately 3500 BC. Armenians lived and still live in many Middle Eastern countries such as Armenia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Azerbaijan, and the republic of Georgia. Armenians have their own language and alphabet and have a very unique culture, which has set them apart from other countries and ethnic groups. In 300 AD, there was not a single nation who had Christianity as their national religion. “Following the advent of Christianity, Armenia became the very first nation to accept it as the state religion.” Armenian pride in their culture and way of life never wavered, even throughout being conquered by different nations. Armenian lands were taken over by many different nations on several different occasions, but they finally ended up in the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s, when ...
Studying the factors that went into the Armenian genocide not only gives us an understanding of a historical moment but also provides us with the knowledge for finding out if the mass murders actually occurred. Did the Armenian genocide really happen? Or is it all just a myth? The history that comes with the Armenian genocide is a victim of historical distortion, state-sponsored falsification, and deep divisions between the Armenians and the Turkish people (Mustafa 1). In 1915, it was said that leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge these events, in fact it is still illegal in Turkey to discuss what happened to the Armenians (History.com Staff 1). The elimination of the Armenians was the model of modern genocide, the act in which a certain state adopts a scheme geared to the destruction of a group of its own citizens (Gust 1). In order to understand why the Turks continue the denial of being involved in the criminal act that was eliminating the Armenian people, we must first consider both the Armenian people and the Turkish peoples’ thoughts and knowledge of the events that took place, and only then, after extensive analysis of the evidence recovered, then we can come to a conclusion as to what really happened all those years ago.